|
||||
|
Title: Hellooooooo Post by Woobie on Jan 22nd, 2004, 2:52am http://www.bopsecrets.org/images/hello.gif [smiley=girlflash.gif] [smiley=crackup.gif] |
||||
|
Title: Re: Hellooooooo Post by 5-string on Jan 22nd, 2004, 8:21am Woobie, That was very good. I agree with it. Thanks. We should understand that,to a degree, that's just biological human nature to be that way. Just like in the movies for women, it's much more easy to let some guy off the hook for doing something irresponsible,disrespectful to (his girl) if the charactor is played by: Brad Pitt, Danzel Washington,Tom Cruise........I've seen it, all they have to do is give that humbled smile and the women go"mmmmmm is'nt he so charming!" CHARMING! He just CHEATED on you!".. But, I understand your point, I'm 5'4 and get it because I'm not that majic 6'0. All the time...drives me nuts.. peace, ...Mark. |
||||
|
Title: Re: Hellooooooo Post by thomas on Jan 22nd, 2004, 8:37am yep. |
||||
|
Title: Re: Hellooooooo Post by benj on Jan 22nd, 2004, 9:00am hey 5-string, I'm 6'4" and that too drives me nuts - want some of it? waddabout 6' for me and 5' 8" for you?... :D and Tina - you forgot to include the picture! ;) I'm interested to know what she looks like!! although, just to start a row, maybe the woman that Thomas pictures is different to the one 5-string pictures and therefore different to the one I picture? If that's the case, then is the conditioning universal or is there some other mechanism in place?? 8) |
||||
|
Title: Re: Hellooooooo Post by thomas on Jan 22nd, 2004, 9:10am on 01/22/04 at 09:00:06, benj wrote:
I'm 6'4" also, I could give him 4 more inches, and all 3 of us would be 6' tall....... on 01/22/04 at 09:00:06, benj wrote:
|
||||
|
Title: Re: Hellooooooo Post by benj on Jan 22nd, 2004, 9:17am you mean you see Mimi (from the Drew Carey Show)too? [smiley=yikes.gif] ;) hope that one cheered you up mate.... [smiley=laugh.gif] |
||||
|
Title: Re: Hellooooooo Post by Hirvimaki on Jan 22nd, 2004, 11:42am This is a fascinating subject. Is beauty a subjective and learned perception? I think it is. There is no set organic response to something "aesthetically pleasing" - the response varies among individuals depending on their history of learned experiences. I find paintings by Monet breathtaking, yet to many his paintings appear crude and childish; I have a hard time finding the beauty in a Jackson Pollock, yet his art is esteemed throughout the world. These differences of beauty standards when applied to art are not surprising. Yet physical beauty seems to enjoy a much more restricted standard. How did such a narrow standard of beauty for physique become almost a universal ideal? The fixation with appearance is not a new phenomenon, nor one exclusive to the western world - it is worldwide and almost timeless. Every culture has its own beauty ideals, and every period of history held its own standards on what was and was not considered beautiful. The ideal form tends to be whatever is most difficult to attain during a given time period. If too many women are able to meet the ideal, then standards have to change for the ideal to retain its extraordinary nature. This age of global communication has served to spread a more limited ideal of beauty farther around than was possible before. Currently, western culture's beauty ideals dominate, so much so that people from other cultures strive to emulate the facial features that make up the minority of the world's population. The media gives us very rigid, uniform beauty ideals. Look around you, you see "beautiful people" everywhere (TV, movies, magazines) and it gives the alluring illusion that the ideal is familiar and therefore normal and attainable. In social and professional situations people are rewarded for looking a certain way. It is this mass culture, facilitated through the vehicle of the modern, far reaching media, that has served to project an exigency and mania with the body ideal and turned what might be a gentle concern into an obsession - often a dangerous one. The current ideal began its life at the start of the last century. During the Victorian era, the ideal body type for women was plump, fleshy, and full-figured - yep, you could order a pizza with everything to get ready for that modeling session. At the start of the 1900s, slenderness was the fashion. By the 1920s, the Victorian hourglass gave way to the thin flapper who bound her breasts to achieve a washboard profile. By the 1950s, a thin woman with a large bust line was considered most attractive and the voluptuous (size 16) Marilyn Monroe set a new standard for women who now needed to rebuild the curves they had previously tried to bind and restrain. By the 1960s, slenderness again became the most important indicator of physical attractiveness following the arrival of the super-skinny model. After 1970 winners of the 'Miss America' pageant consistently weighed less than the other contestants. In 1975 top models and beauty queens weighed only 8% less than the average women. Today they weigh 23% less, a size achievable by less than 5% of today's female population. Although I married my wife because she is a kind, loving, incredibly smart person, I was initially attracted to her because she does meet that ideal with which we are bombarded. Lucky me. I get the carrot! Food for thought. Hirvimaki |
||||
|
Title: Re: Hellooooooo Post by brad267 on Jan 22nd, 2004, 12:15pm --- I shoulda been born in the 20's.... Brad |
||||
|
Title: Re: Hellooooooo Post by Woobie on Jan 23rd, 2004, 2:36pm WOW Hirvimaki! ;;D ;;D |
||||
|
Title: yea baby Post by rumplestiltskin on Jan 23rd, 2004, 2:44pm For every hot steamy chick I see...i remember that there is a man somewhere who is sick and tired of that bi_tchs shit. love den |
||||
|
Title: Re: yea baby Post by jonny on Jan 23rd, 2004, 3:06pm on 01/23/04 at 14:44:29, rumplestiltskin wrote:
TOUCHE'....DEN!!! LMMFAO .........................jonny |
||||
|
Title: Re: Hellooooooo Post by Charlie on Jan 23rd, 2004, 3:13pm Dunno Woobs. This one is a bit anorexic for me. On the other hand, count me in if she has nice tits, round ass, no facial hair and long legs. I'm fussy that way. Charlie |
||||
|
Title: ::)Re: Hellooooooo Post by Cerberus on Jan 23rd, 2004, 4:38pm Don't let her fool you folks..............she bought a bottle of hair dye two days ago. ::) :-X Ramon |
||||
|
Title: Re: Hellooooooo Post by cootie on Jan 23rd, 2004, 4:58pm I've seen alot of beautiful people get away with alot of ugly things.......kinda like keepin stuff around that takes up space with no 'valuable' uses and give back nothin but is nice to look at. Sex sells Pam |
||||
|
Title: Re: Hellooooooo Post by Cerberus on Jan 23rd, 2004, 5:24pm The thing that bothers me the most.......???? The way the media has targeted younger and younger females.............hence 10 yr. olds who are worried about being "Fat". I worked with a gal who will not even leave the house for her job until she has done the one hour ritual (minimal time spent in her case) of face painting, hair, nails etc. She was late alot. If there is no make up applied, she don't go............sickening. There is ALWAYS going to be something about ourselves we don't like, more folks should focus on their inner selves rather than the outer. Me? I'll get too hungry to wait on a broad to do all that bull. I said I'll pick you up at 7............its now 7:01 and I meant it. Ramon |
||||
|
Clusterheadaches.com Message Board » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1! YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved. |